Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
CA 02720962 2013-07-05
WO 2009/146170 PCT/US2009/040518
A METHOD OF DECREASING AN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF
A LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE WITHOUT DECREASING
BRIGHTNESS
Field of the Invention
The field of the invention relates to the dynamics of seeing and more
particularly,
to visual perception of subjects.
Background of the Invention
In the past, psychophysical studies of brightness perception have focused on
the
perception of spatial contrast illusions, in which each simultaneously
presented stimuli
affects the other's brightness across space. These and later studies formed
the basis of
much of the current research understanding of brightness perception, in which
the two
main stimulus parameters that contribute to brightness are physical intensity
and stimulus
duration.
For example, consider the role of physical intensity on brightness perception.
The
just-noticeable difference in brightness (Al) between a target and its
background is a
function of the physical luminosity of the stimuli (I). This principle,
first
formally derived by G. T. Fechner in 1860, was originally discovered by M. P.
Bouguer
in 1760 and later rediscovered by E. H. Weber in 1843, and has become known as
Weber's law (or the "Weber-Fechner law").
Psychophysical magnitude may be defined as W= k = log I, where Pis
perceptual intensity, and I is physical intensity; k is a modality or task
specific constant.
The Weber-Fechner law was redrafted into Stevens' Power Law in the 1960s,
which no
longer assumes, as Fechner did, that the perceptual magnitude of one just-
noticeable
difference threshold is the same as any other V= k (0". These psychophysical
laws
describe the relationship between physical intensity and perceptual intensity
for most
environments.
The role of stimulus duration on brightness perception may also be considered.
In
this regard, the perceived stimulus intensity also varies as a function of
duration. A. M.
CA 02720962 2010-10-07
WO 2009/146170
PCT/US2009/040518
Bloch (Bloch's law), asserts that a short-duration visual stimulus of high
physical
intensity or a longer-duration target of lower intensity can appear equally
bright.
Research by A. Brock and D. Sulzer (Broca-Sulzer), in effect, states that as
the duration
of a flashed target increases, the perceived brightness of the target first
increases, but then
decreases. Many people in the last century have discussed either Bloch's Law
or the
Broca-Sulzer effect, but none of them have explicitly discussed the
discrepancy between
these two principles. Because of the importance of vision on human endeavors,
a need
exists for methods of exploiting the benefits of these principles.
Summary
A method and apparatus are provided for viewing a subject. The method includes
the steps of providing a predetermined visual contrast among image details of
the subject
and maintaining the visual contrast for a predetermined time period of less
than 100
milliseconds.
Brief Description of the Drawings
FIG. 1 is an electrical recording of a neuron of an anesthetized monkey
receiving
at least some visual stimuli in accordance with illustrated embodiments of the
invention;
FIG. 2 is an electrical recording of intracellular voltage as a function of
stimulus
duration of the monkey of FIG. 2;
FIGs. 3A-C are test results of subjects showing the benefits of visual stimuli
in
accordance with illustrated embodiments of the invention;
FIG. 4 is a system for visually stimulating a subject in accordance with an
illustrated embodiment of the invention; and
FIG. 5 depicts a timing diagram of visual stimuli produced by the system of
FIG.
4.
Detailed Description of an Illustrated Embodiment
The duration of a stimulus has been found to affect its perceived brightness.
Bloch's Law, also called the time-reciprocity law, asserts that as the
duration of a visual
2
CA 02720962 2010-10-07
WO 2009/146170
PCT/US2009/040518
stimulus increases, its detection threshold decreases (without increasing the
actual
luminance of the stimulus). Bloch's law operates out to temporal durations of
up to 30-
130 msec (depending on viewing conditions), at which the effect plateaus,
according to
the literature (that is, further increases in duration neither increase nor
decrease stimulus
brightness). Bloch's Law presumably operates due to some sort of integrative
action of
the visual system, although the neural correlates are not known. Reports by A.
Broca and
D. Sulzer in 1902, and W. McDougall in 1903 posit that as a suprathreshold
stimulus
increases in duration it first becomes brighter and then dimmer as the
stimulus duration
increases. Interestingly, a plateau in stimulus brightness with increased
stimulus duration
was not reported, as one might expect from the literature associated with
Bloch's law.
Moreover, many studies of the temporal dynamics of brightness perception
examine the
brightness of flicker, which confounds stimulus duration, the interval between
flashes
(called the inter-stimulus interval), and the effects of repetition. With
these studies, one
cannot know whether perceived brightness is due to stimulus duration or one of
these
other factors. E. Brucke in 1863 and S. H. Bartley in 1947-8 reported that the
brightness
of individual flashes varied as a function of flash duration (what is now
referred to as the
"Brucke-Bartley Effect"). However, they determined this by measuring the
brightness of
flickering light and calculating the inverse of the flicker rate to determine
the duration of
the stimulus, not by directly measuring the brightness of a single stimulus as
a function of
duration. That is, because they used flickering stimuli, they too confounded
duration,
inter-stimulus interval, and various other flicker-related factors that could
have affected
brightness.
Physiological measurements of flicker-related responses have been made in the
visual cortex. The results showed increased activity at the points where
flicker looked
brightest. However, these measurements provided only average firing rates as a
function
Of flicker rate.
One factor in the perceived brightness of a light source is the temporal
dynamics
of the stimulus: the brightness of a flash of light can vary as a function of
both its
luminance and its duration. (As used herein the term "brightness" is also used
to mean
"contrast" and/or "salience" for the purposes of this description.) Contrast
may be
3
CA 02720962 2010-10-07
WO 2009/146170
PCT/US2009/040518
measured using any of a number of conventional standards (e.g., Michelson
contrast,
weber contrast, RMS contrast), although weber contrast is the preferred
method.
For further clarification (and as used herein), radiance will be used to refer
to the
amount of light produced by a light-emitting object (e.g., a light bulb) and
luminance is
the amount of light (within the human visible spectrum) produced by a light-
emitting
object (e.g., a light bulb). In contrast, reflectance is the amount of light
that a surface
(i.e., a white versus a black object) is reflecting within a given spectrum.
Similarly, illumination is the combination of reflectance and radiance (or
luminance). This is in contrast to the colloquial use of the word which means
the amount
of light that is shined onto a surface.
The central hypothesis developed herein is that a user can decrease the power
output of a light source, without decreasing brightness, by decreasing the
duration of the
stimulus to an optimal range. However, the precise neural mechanisms that
underlie
brightness perception as a function of stimulus duration are unknown. This gap
in
knowledge has prevented the optimization of stimulus power to perceived
brightness. The
rationale of the invention is that by understanding the temporal dynamics of
stimulus
duration and brightness perception, a user will understand the parameters
necessary to
optimize light source power output for human perception, thereby optimizing
power
efficiency. The invention is innovative because it is the first to correlate
the perception of
brightness of single flashes of light directly to the underlying neuronal
processes in
humans and primates.
A first question considered herein is whether there is a peak or a plateau in
stimulus brightness as a function of duration. Previous studies have disagreed
on whether
brightness peaks or plateaus as a function of stimulus duration. However, no
previous
study has examined the brightness of single-flashed, randomly presented,
suprathreshold
stimuli in naive subjects.
A second question considered herein is what parts of the neural response
mediates
the effect of duration on brightness perception. One hypothesis is that the
interplay
between the magnitude of the neural onset response and after-discharge mediate
the peak
in brightness perception as a function of duration. In order to answer this
question, the
4
CA 02720962 2010-10-07
WO 2009/146170 PCT/U S2009/040518
neural response of primary cortical single neurons in awake monkeys was
recorded,
while simultaneously assessing the perceived brightness of stimuli of varied
duration.
A third question is whether brain activity can be correlated with stimulus
duration
and dissociated from stimulus power. In this regard, the hypothesis is that
human
retinotopic visual cortical areas will vary in their activity (e.g., as
measured using a Blood
Oxygen Dependent Signal (BOLD)) in correlation to perception but dissociated
from
stimulus luminance. It has previously been shown that as luminance increases,
so does
the BOLD signal. However, no previous functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI)
study has differentially varied stimulus power as a function of both stimulus
duration and
luminance.
The role of stimulus duration on the neural response may be considered next.
In
this regard, Fig 1 shows a recording of the evolution of the response from a
single neuron
in cortical area V1 of an anesthetized monkey to a stimulus of optimal
dimensions and
varied durations. As shown, the magnitude of the after-discharge response
grows as the
target duration increases from 17 milliseconds (ms) to 443 ms.
Increasing duration has been found to result in an increased magnitude of the
onset response and after-discharge up to a duration of approximately 83 ms,
after which
only the after discharge increased, then decreased, in magnitude.
Intracellular neural data
from anesthetized cat test subjects in area V1 is shown in FIG. 2. As shown,
the
magnitude of the onset response grows as a function of duration for short
durations (e.g.,
less than 84 ms) and then after-discharge first grows and then shrinks as a
function of
duration. These findings reveal why the optimized stimulus appears brighter,
despite
being of lower energy: it evokes stronger onset and after-discharge responses.
With regard to the first question above, if brightness shows a plateau as a
function
of duration then it would be expected that the psychometric curves would shift
for short
durations and then to stop shifting for long durations. If brightness peaks
then the curves
will shift for short durations, and then shift back (at least partially) for
longer durations.
FIG. 3A-C shows a set of test results that compare brightness and duration of
stimuli. FIG. 3A (left side) shows brightness plateaus with duration and FIG.
3A (right
side) shows brightness peaks with duration. FIG. 3B compares brightness at 30%
contrast (left side) and at 60% (right side).
CA 02720962 2010-10-07
WO 2009/146170
PCT/US2009/040518
FIG. 3C, left side, shows the equivalent perceived contrast of panel 3B (50%
crossing points) as a function of time. FIG. 3C, right side, shows the
perceived contrast
as a function of power (output energy/sec) for stimuli of various durations
versus various
luminances. The dark blue curves represent the perceived contrast of a 60%
contrast
stimulus as a function of duration, compared to a light blue curve of a
stimulus of 300 ms
duration with varied luminance. The arrow in FIG. 3C, right side, points to
the stimulus
with optimal brightness as a function of stimulus power. The arrow shows that
an 84 ms
stimulus of 60% contrast has the same brightness as a 300 ms stimulus of 70%
contrast.
The red curves in FIG. 3C, right side, compare a 30% contrast stimulus of
varied
durations to a 300 ms stimulus of varied luminances.
Turning now to uses of the invention, a major component of energy consumption
is dedicated to the powering of light-emitting devices that aid in visual
perception. Light
bulbs, video monitors, warning lights on ground, air and maritime vehicles
etc. must all
convert electrical power into photonic energy of sufficient luminance to
sustain visibility
and detection under various conditions.
FIG. 3C demonstrates that the human eye has an equal ability in detecting an
84
ms stimulus at 60% contrast as a 300 ms stimulus at 70% contrast. However, the
84 ms
stimulus at 60% contrast consumes one-sixth the power of the 300 ms stimulus
at 70%
contrast. Moreover, the relatively gradual slope of the curves on the left
side of FIG. 3C
(on opposing sides of the optimal time of 84 ms) shows that the benefits can
be achieved
with substantial deviation from the optimized value. Because of the gradual
slope, it is
believed that a significant benefit can be obtained from operating light
fixtures to give
visual stimuli with a duration within a range of values. Under one preferred
embodiment,
the range is from 80-88 ms. Under another embodiment, the range could be
anywhere
from 75 to 100 ms. Moreover, comparison of the 30% and 60% contrast values
show that
the optimized time value of 83 ms is more important than contrast.
FIG. 4 shows a visual stimulus system 10 that may be used to demonstrate
aspects
of the invention. In this regard, the system 10 includes a processing unit 12
that may be
used to present visual stimuli via one or more light emitting devices 20, 26
or to display
stimulus 18 on a display 14 to a test subject 16.
6
CA 02720962 2010-10-07
WO 2009/146170
PCT/US2009/040518
In order to exploit this ability of the human eye, the system 10 of FIG. 4 may
operate under a number of different modes depending upon the stimuli to be
presented.
For example, in the case of warning lights, the stimuli may simply be
presented using a
light emitting device 26 operating with an activation or ON time (ti) of about
84 ms = and
a deactivated or OFF time (t2) (as shown in FIG. 5) with an appropriate
repetition rate.
The repetition rate may be chosen as any value that attracts attention or at
some chosen
rate that eliminates flicker.
The visual contrast of the subject (i.e., the light 26) in this context would
be
determined by the distance of an observer to the warning light and background
of the
light. For example, an observer 100 feet from a warning light would require a
higher
luminance level than an observer 10 feed from the warning light to achieve
some optimal
contrast. Similarly, if the light 26 where operating against a daylight sky,
then the
contrast would be much less than a night time sky. In general, the light pulse
30 shown
in FIG. 5 would be chosen to have a 84 ms length and would be adapted in power
to a
daylight or night time sky to achieve the desired 60% contrast.
The time t2 would be adjusted as necessary to the needs of a warning light. In
this regard, a warning light may require a time t2 that flickers in order to
attract attention.
A value of t2 equal to 500 ms to 1 second may be sufficient for this purpose.
It should be noted that prior art imaging devices could not operate at a
repetition
rate below 30 Hz because of flicker. However, the system 10 can operate
significantly
below 30 Hz because of the visual masking produced by the 84 ms pulse.
The invention can also be extended to other types of lighting and/or imaging
devices. For example, the system 10 could be used for room or task lighting.
In the case
of a person reading a book 22, a level of light 24 to achieve 60% contrast at
some
distance (e.g., 3 feet) from a light source 20 can be easily calculated. Once
the required
light level has been calculated, a power source 12 operating under control of
a timer 28
may activate the light source 20 with an ON time of 84 ms followed by an
appropriate
OFF time. For convenience, the power source 12 may be synchronized with the
power
utility to provide a repetition rate of some fraction of 60 cycles per second
(e.g., 20 Hz).
In the case of a person 16 reading a book 22, a light level control 32 may be
provided through which the user 16 could increase the illumination produced by
the 84
7
CA 02720962 2013-07-05
WO 2009/146170 PCT/11S2009/040518
ms pulse to improve contrast in the event of vision problems. Similarly, a
repetition rate
control 34 may be provided to adjust the time value t2 in order to avoid
flicker.
The system 10 can also be used for computers, television monitors or displays
14
for displaying stimuli in the form of images 18. In this case, the power
source 12 may be
a central processing unit of a computer system 10. Contrast can be calculated
based upon
the distance of a user 16 from the display 13 and controlled by the CPU 12.
The use of optimized ON time discussed above can result in displays that are
constructed of more efficient materials. For example, in the past, displays 14
were
required to have pixel elements that could continuously maintain an image
between raster
scans. However, as demonstrated above, pixels only need hold an image for
approximately 84 ms at a target contrast level and an appropriate repetition
rate. This can
result in display devices that can operate with a much smaller duty cycle
thereby reducing
cooling concerns and the size of drive circuits.
The optimized ON time can also be used with display devices operating under a
constant lighting source. For example, liquid crystal displays (LCDs) use an
electric
signal to create a display that becomes visible under a constant light source.
However,
rather than requiring a constant image signal to the LCD, the image signal can
be reduced
to an ON time that only need create an image for 84 ms at an acceptable
repetition rate.
This also has the ability to reduce the power consumed by LCD displays.
A specific embodiment of method and apparatus for viewing a subject has been
described for the purpose of illustrating the manner in which the invention is
made and
used. It should be understood that the implementation of other variations and
modifications of the invention and its various aspects will be apparent to one
skilled in
the art, and that the invention is not limited by the specific embodiments
described.
8
